Jump to content

Brownage

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    93

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Brownage

  6. Posted

    I can't help but laugh at the people who fall for the Obama talking point on reducing military spending. Yeah, all of those drone strikes sure are cheap! Do you even know how much money goes into those things? You have the actual drone, the rockets, the people who operate them, the people who maintain them, the people who gather intelligence on where to strike...etc. It's not any cheaper than putting boots on the ground.

     

    And with all the bullshit going on in the Middle East, you REALLY believe that we'll be able to just keep status quo? We're going to reeled into all of it, no matter who is President. Don't kid yourself into thinking "Oh Mitt wants to go war again hurf durf" because the reality is, it's probably going to happen with Obama too.

     

    Obama's foreign policy might as well be a fucking page by page copy of George W. Bush's.

  8. Posted

    I guess I could thank him for the stuff in from the 60's- til about the late 80's

     

    Like firing Paul Brown? Chasing Jim Brown and numerous other players away? Going through coaches like they're pigs on a farm?

     

    He did some good for the NFL as a whole but he wasn't exactly the greatest thing that ever happened to the Browns either. In fact, he's probably the worst thing.

  14. Posted

    Translation: I'm too much of a moron to understand that constantly voting for the lesser of two evils only encourages the two-party system to become a one-party system.

     

    (Note that I mean what the voter considers to be the lesser of two evils, this swings both ways.)

     

    It's a vote of protest, neither of the two candidates fits SteVo's idea of a presidential candidate, (and for that matter, neither fits mine either). If you continue to always vote for the guy who is just a little bit better than his opponent, both parties will come as close together as they possibly can while still retaining their base, who votes for them because of your insane logic.

     

    Creating a 3rd party would take a very long time with lots of sacrifices in the short-term, but it can be done and has been done before. Saying it's merely a throwaway vote simply misunderstands the idea behind voting for a 3rd-party candidate.

     

    Do you see third party candidates making a serious run in the future? The closest they'll ever get is what Ross Perot accomplished in 1992.

     

    So yes, it is a throw-away vote. You can validate your moronic judgement all you want by calling it a "protest" but the fact is, it's never going to happen.

    • Upvote 1

  16. Posted

    While the Ryan pick is great for firing up conservatives, I'm not sure it helps with independent voters. Romney himself was already an economic guy; why be redundant with Ryan? Also, his bold budget plans--especially concerning Medicare--will probably not sit well with old people, a huge voting population. Also, Ryan has some pretty interesting social policies, specifically with regards to women. Worth looking in to.

     

    As a minor, inconsequential note, anyone else notice that he sounds exactly like Eric Foreman from That 70's Show? Seriously, listen to one of his speeches.

     

    This is just the final confirmation that I'll be voting for Johnson/Gray. :yep:

     

    Translation: My vote just might as well go to Obama but I'm too pussy to actually do so.

     

    Voting for the 3rd party does absolutely nothing besides weaken the voting numbers for one of the candidates. Does the name Ross Perot sound familiar? He's the reason H.W. didn't get a second term. And one the reasons Clinton was able to wipe the floor with Dole in '96. There's a reason it's called a "throw-away" vote.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 4

  21. Posted

    That's one of the biggest myths about health care. The US does not rank highly relative to other OECD countries in terms of care. We have slightly better specialists, but those are getting to be so expensive that there is a MUCH higher number of people leaving the country for special treatments than foreigners entering the US for specialized treatment.

     

    What you describe may be true of *some* countries with socialized single-payer medicine, but that's not what we've implemented here. I fear too many people associate "universal" with "socialized" when discussing this topic.

     

    Because there is not all that much difference between the two of them.

  22. Posted · Edited by Brownage

    The fact that the Constitutionality of this bill came into question in the first place is a real shame. Think about it; the majority of Congress and the President of the United States--both of whom took a sworn oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution--signed this bill, and four Supreme Court justices believe it to be Unconstitutional. That's my biggest problem with this situation.

     

    As for the bill itself, anyone familiar with its workings want to educate me: how does this affect someone like me, who is already on a stable health care plan with my parents?

     

    Doesn't affect you. With this "law", you're now able to stay on until you're 26 years old. Other than that, nothing much changes for you.

     

    And I'd argue against your posts Philadelphia, but I might as well just be watching Bill Maher. You're just re-hashing the same liberal talking points over and over without providing any substance to your argument.

     

    EDIT: And if that wasn't enough, you provided a link to REDDIT as a source. Well done.

    • Upvote 1

  23. Posted

    Again, Roberts thinks the law is a bad one. He simply believed the government had the constitutional authority to pass it.

     

    The way to keep this law from actually going into effect is to put up guys who are going to vote to repeal it, if you really feel that strongly about it.

     

    Honestly, I'd rather we get out of the middle east.

     

    The Republicans all say it will cost more, the Dems all say it will cost less. Who knows which is right? To make a blanket statement saying that it will definitely cost more is just ignoring one-half of the evidence presented.

     

    Phail brought up the point about denying the Feds the power to force states to accept conditions in order to get federal funding, so no need to go into that further.

     

    If your primary wish is to get out of the Middle East, Barack ain't your boy. You may point to the Iraq withdrawal, but the majority of the troops stationed in Iraq just moved back next door to Afghanistan. And you honestly believe with all the shit in Libya, Egypt, and Syria that we'll just stay out of it completely? Don't hold your breath. Obama's foreign policy might as well be a Xerox copy of Dubya's.

     

    The Republicans saying it will cost more are correct. This bill is intended to add thousands, if not millions of people to health insurance (whether they like it or not) without adding any doctors or extra facilities. You know what that does? Economics 101. Demand goes up - price goes up. A tax, one that a majority won't have to pay even, will NOT fund itself. So I'll leave it to you to guess who's going to pay for it. Hint: Look in a mirror.

     

     

    My primary concern is still that insurance premiums are going to go way up, and the middle class is going to get screwed. And if it does happen, by the time we realize it, we'll be stuck with four more years of Obama.

     

    But it's completely against my own self interests as a middle class citizen to not vote Democrat! What are you talking about? Obama will take care of me, I'm sure.

    • Upvote 1

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×